Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2015-11-21 (Nov 21, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP www.sepp.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Quote of the Week:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” – Niccolò Machiavelli

Attribution: With each successive report the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) becomes more certain in attributing recent climate change to human influence. That is, that human influence, particularly carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), is the specific cause of climate change. This intensification of certainty is particularly noticeable in a trend from Third Assessment Report (AR3, 2001), to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013 & 2014). Specifically, AR5 states:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

“Extremely likely” is defined as 95% to 100% probability. According to an assertion in AR3, “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.” (Section 14.2.2.2, discussed in last week’s TWTW).

There is no established probability distribution presented. Thus, the term “extremely likely” is more based on the opinion of the political actors writing the SPM, than on any objective probability distribution.

Yet, Section C, Drivers of Climate Change, in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) states a Very High level of confidence in the warming influence from CO2 of 1.68 W/m squared with a range of 1.33 to 2.03. This is far greater than total natural influences considered, namely Changes in solar irradiance of 0.05 W/m squared, with a range of 0 to 0.10 and a level of confidence of Medium. . Of note, the base is relative to 1750, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the use of fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.

Climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There is little doubt that humans have some influence on climate change, particularly from land use changes. To state that, starting in 1951, human emissions of CO2 overwhelmed natural influences without carefully producing the empirical evidence is absurd. As a minimum, the natural influences on climate, particularly warming periods of the past need to be carefully explained, not pushed aside as the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Third Assessment Report tried to do with Mr. Mann’s hockey-stick.

On her web site, Climate Etc., Judith Curry analyzes the jump in the IPCC’s claimed certainty from AR4 to AR5 and finds the substantiation poor. Curry focuses on three periods in particular: 2000 to the present (the so-called hiatus); 1940 to 1970 (the so called grand hiatus, or a cooling period) and 1910 to 1940 (a warming period before the extensive use of fossil fuels. By choosing a period starting in 1951, the IPCC largely avoids having to explain these periods, which CO2 emissions just do not.

Tom Karl of NOAA, and some of his cohorts, have adjusted the historic surface record in an effort to eliminate the so-called hiatus. However, the criticism of effort is intensifying, and some of Karl’s defenders are claiming political oppression of science. The claim is particularly rich when one realizes that the political defenders of Karl’s efforts include those who remained quiet or joined-in on calls to politically investigate global warming skeptics who question the pronouncements of the IPCC and entities that support it.

The political stakes are high, with any lasting COP-21 agreement to control the use of fossil fuels based on predictions/projections/forecasts from un-validated climate models and the claimed IPCC certainty, which is not substantiated. These criticisms also apply to the Administration’s plans to replace reliable electricity generated by fossil fuels with unreliable electricity generated by wind and solar, as well as the EPA’s Endangerment Finding – that carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare. Without the Endangerment Finding, the Administration’s plans have no justification and will economically implode. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Problems in the Orthodoxy, Oh Mann! And https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-… particularly Figure SPM.5, p. 14

Iatrogenic: In a post related to the IPCC and the COP-21 in Climate Etc., Judith Curry brings up the concept of Iatrogenic climate policy. She states” “Iatrogenic: Due to the activity of a physician or therapy. For example, an iatrogenic illness is an illness that is caused by a medication or physician.” In the US there is a similar saying: “The cure is worse than the disease.”

Curry uses the term to discuss the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which will take place in Paris between November 30 and December 11, 2015. As Curry discusses, the UNFCCC desires to radically accelerate a transition from fossil fuels to different forms of “clean energy.” Often, wind and solar generation of electricity are called “clean energy,” but modern civilization does not function well on unreliable, untrustworthy electricity. As long as there is no available form of electricity storage, on a commercial scale other than pumped storage, which is geographically limited, there will be significant resistance to adapting to solar and wind power. Who would go to a hospital for a serious operation if the electricity failed frequently and unpredictably?

Experiences in Denmark, Germany, and the UK are demonstrating that solar and wind are expensive forms of electricity generation when the need for reliable power is included. Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity prices to consumers in Europe and the UK recently announced reductions in subsidies for solar and wind. UK is following similar reductions in subsidies that occurred in Spain and Italy. Very simply, the public is not tolerating the high costs. High costs of solar and wind is also resulting in a German energy policy that is focused on building coal-fired power plants using readily available brown coal, which has extensive wastes as compared to black coal, to replace nuclear power plants, which the government decided to eliminate.

The US Administration seems oblivious to what is occurring world-wide, but the US Congress appears that it is not. As of now, it appears that Congress will not fund the Administration’s dreams of unreliable “clean power.” The Administration may try many different political and word-play games. But for any plan to succeed it must be funded by Congress. This Congress seems to be more attentive to the real, known costs of energy transition than the imaginative costs of future climate change calculated from un-validated climate models. See Article # 1 and links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, On to Paris, The Administration’s Plan – Push-Back, Problems in the Orthodoxy, Questioning European Green, and Subsidies and Mandates Forever.

Lowering Standards: The Council of the American Physical Society (APS), “a non-profit membership organization working to advance the knowledge of physics”, announced a National Policy Statement on the Earth’s Changing Climate.

“On Climate Change: Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

“On Climate Science: As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more compelling than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.

“On Climate Action: The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.”

At least the statement recognizes that there is natural climate variability. The balance appears to more of a statement from a political entity copying the IPCC or the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, with its lines of evidence (unspecified by the APS), than a statement from an objective scientific society.

When “the APS urges sustained research in climate science”, TWTW can only ask is not more than $40 Billion with no effort to validate a climate model enough? How much more is necessary to do the work properly?

When Judith Curry brought up the statement she wrote she will not be renewing her membership. See links under Lowering Standards.

David Evans: Jo Nova continues to post on her blog comments by David Evans on his criticism of the climate science expressed by the IPCC, with particular emphasis on the models used by the IPCC. Evans has written a synopsis of the 19 prior blog posts. Many of the 19 prior posts use mathematics to the extent that some interested readers are lost. That is one reason why TWTW has been waiting for the entire series to be complete before commenting in any detail.

Prior to the synopsis, SEPP director Tom Sheahen commented that Evans states the “basic architecture” of the conventional models is wrong, because Arrhenius (and all who followed) assumed that the response to more CO2 would be the same as the response to more sunlight. Absolutely not, says Evans; there is a totally separate response to more CO2 which causes other processes, notably the “re-routing” of escaping heat, which leaves via other pathways such as more radiation from water vapor in the upper troposphere. Evans insists that a “change of architecture” is needed to correct this error at a very basic level.

Having read this post # 19, he is returning to post #1 and start wading through the series, because now he now sees where it is all headed. Evans states that post 19 is the end of section 2 of his treatise, and section 3 will begin next. (Posts # 1 to #10 were the first section, #11 to #19 the second.)

Behind the post #19 are 174 comments. The first one brought in the “lapse rate”, the same topic that Kyoji Kimoto dealt with (TWTW, Nov 14). Sheahen wrote “I’ll make a bold prediction that there will someday be convergence of skeptical positions around these ideas.” This effort by Evans may prove to be very fruitful. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

Untethered. Occasionally articles apparat that proclaim wind power will be more reliable if the turbines are mounted on balloons far above the surface, much like anti-aircraft balloons (actually blimps) of World War II. In the past, John Brignell been skeptical about the idea asking how they will be adequately tethered (tied down.). The October 24th TWTW linked to another idea suggesting kites. Again, the same problem exists. Another issue is that the nacelle (housing, generator and gear box) of a “smaller” GE 1.5 megawatt model weights more than 56 tons (51,000 kilos). Turbines mounted on blimp may be dangerous.

The military has been experimenting with blimps equipped with special gear to detect incoming cruise missiles. On October 28, one escaped Aberdeen Proving Ground in North East Maryland. According to reports, the dragging tethering lines snapped local power lines causing outages to about 20,000 customers. The surveillance blimp was quickly chased by F-16 fighter jets and finally descended in the Pennsylvania countryside, where it was dispatched by local police firing about 100 rounds from handguns.

According to the AP reports: “‘My understanding is, from having seen these break loose in Afghanistan on a number of occasions, we could get it to descend and then we’ll recover it and put it back up,’ Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a brief exchange with reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday. ‘This happens in bad weather.'” No doubt a 56 ton turbine would have added to the alarm. See link under Below the Bottom Line.

Number of the Week: $16.5 Trillon. A group the Climate Policy Initiative issued a report titled The Global Landscape of Climate Finance, which it called “The most comprehensive inventory of climate change investment available.” The report states that total climate finance in 2014 came to $391 Billion. It further states that over the next 15 years $13.5 Trillion is needed to support pledges under the UNFCCC “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.” A total of $16.5 Trillion is needed in the next 15 years to limit the increase in temperature to 2ºC – a contrived number based on estimates from un-validated climate models.

By way of comparison, the World Bank estimated the Gross Domestic Product of the US was $17.420 Trillion in calendar year 2014. TWTW has not examined these estimates. But they are useful to understand the extent of financing the promoters of the UNFCCC hope to obtain. Those who claim skeptics are financed by oil companies should look at these types of financing. See links under Environmental Industry.

ARTICLES: The Articles section is now at the bottom of TWTW.

Please Note: Due to Travel, this TWTW will be shorter than usual.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back

Lawsuit filed in the #RICO20 case against GMU for ‘denying’ records exist

“The French edition of the Huffington Post went full-Guardian with its response to Friday’s massacre in Paris, insisting there were ‘several undeniable links between these barbaric and fascist acts by radical Islamists and the climate’.”

Expanding the Orthodoxy

Questioning European Green

German CO2 emissions targets at risk

A new coal-fired power plant has opened in Germany a day after an expert commission told the energy minister the country must triple its annual rate of decarbonization to meet its ambitious 2020 climate policy goals.

“A NOAA official said the agency’s scientific integrity office has not received any complaints about scientific misconduct related to the study, or any such complaints so far this year.”

Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Amber Rudd: end to pursuit of green energy at all costs

Keeping the lights on is now top priority, energy secretary to say, as she warns that households face paying over the odds for energy for years to come due to poor value green subsidies handed out by her predecessors

“Wind energy is doing very well… Apparently, solar energy is now more affordable. If solar energy is now affordable, then the federal subsidies are no longer needed. These federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014.”

[SEPP Comment: Montford recognizes he may have been premature to express an opinion on a political speech based on a report in the Guardian. Afterwards, Montford states the UK has an electrical system “where no form of power generation, not even gas-fired power stations, can be built without government intervention.”]

SUMMARY: The former environment editor and energy reporter for the newspaper now writes about energy and heads a project exploring the relationships among countries in the globalizing clean-energy industry. Mr Ball writes that the environmental movement thrives on symbolism, but that is not substitute for substance. Two distinctions are important to will happen in Paris – geography and politics. Virtually all the growth in energy consumption, fossil fuel consumption, will occur in China and India. The want growth. The rest is fluff: “To use a theater analogy, the developing countries are the actors in the climate show-and the rich countries are merely the stage hands.”

In politics, Kyoto failed to produce an agreement that limited growth that developing countries want. “Ever since then, climate partisans have pursued another global agreement, this time one with teeth enough to force deeper carbon cuts. Those efforts have failed.

In the lead-up to Paris, the U.S., China and many other countries have proffered voluntary commitments to curb the growth in their emissions.

“Two things about these commitments are worth keeping in mind: They would produce only limited climate progress, and they’re climate pledges only tangentially. Countries are peddling in the name of climate change policies that they have come to endorse for reasons they see as more domestically compelling: boosting jobs, spurring technological innovation, combating smoggy air.

“The distinction underscores that Paris is likely to produce carbon cuts only to the extent that individual countries see cutting carbon as a way to make their domestic economies more competitive.”

Thanks for alerting us to the fact that David Evans had finally reached his punch line. I had followed hopefully for awhile, but I gave up because I was seeing all wind-up and no pitch; there are only so many hours in the day.

forget all of the above very important announcment on climate change this will effect every thing that we believed about climate change . Prince Charles statment on climate change ihttp://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/international/2015/11/23/climate-change-link-to-syrian-war–charles.html

To state that, starting in 1951, human emissions of CO2 overwhelmed natural influences without carefully producing the empirical evidence is absurd.

There is an expression, “To err is human, to really f**k things up, you need a computer.”
Climate science uses a lot of computers.
Like Hollywood where CGI or computer graphics now precludes the need for building real sets, climate modelers believe computer generated climate precludes the need for empirical evidence.

Mustn’t forget Seth Borenstein’s morning propaganda piece.http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-080125499–election.html
AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates failAssociated Press By SETH BORENSTEIN
8 hours ago
Content preferences Done Graphic shows results of survey of scientists on candidatesâ€™ statements on climate change; 2c x 5 inches; 96.3 mm x 127 mm; .
View gallery
Graphic shows results of survey of scientists on candidatesâ€™ statements on climate change; 2c x 5 inches; …WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are ‘A’ students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates’ comments.
Trump brought out some of the more colorful and terse critiques.
“…it’s going to start to cool at some point,” Trump said in a September radio interview. “And you know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling. I don’t know if you know that or not. They thought the Earth was cooling. Now it’s global warming. Actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out so they changed it to extreme weather and they have all different names…” (snip. For the full article, see links]
“What We Know” on climate science by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on climate science: http://bit.ly/ZxACVI
“Climate Change: Evidence and Causes” by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of United Kingdom: http://bit.ly/1pufueQ
___
Follow Seth Borenstein at http://twitter.com/borenbears; his work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/seth-borenstein
EDITOR’S NOTE _ This story, assessing political claims that take shortcuts with the facts or don’t tell the full story, is part of an occasional series focusing on the science, the costs and the challenges of climate change around the world ahead of a summit in Paris

Sorry, couldn’t get the full text on the first post. Note how ground temperatures are declared more accurate than satellites, which near as I can tell, the only point where they make any kind of concrete statement – albeit a false one – and the rest is just vague fear-mongering and comments on C02 emissions.
AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates failAssociated Press By SETH BORENSTEIN
8 hours ago
Content preferences Done AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates fail
.
View gallery
. . . . WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are ‘A’ students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates’ comments.
At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale.
To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates’ comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had the highest average score at 94. Three scientists did not assign former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley a score, saying his statements mostly were about policy, which they could not grade, instead of checkable science.
Two used similar reasoning to skip grading New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and one did the same for businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had the lowest score, an average of 6. All eight put Cruz at the bottom of the class.
“This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner,” Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz’s statements. “That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president.”
View gallery Graphic shows results of survey of scientists on candidatesÃ¢â¬â¢ … Graphic shows results of survey of scientists on candidatesâ€™ statements on climate change; 2c x 5 …Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with an 87, had the lowest score among the Democrats, dinged for an exaggeration when he said global warming could make Earth uninhabitable. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush scored the highest among Republicans, 64, but one grader gave him a perfect 100. Bush was the only Republican candidate who got a passing grade on climate in the exercise.
Below Clinton’s 94 were O’Malley with 91; Sanders, 87; Bush, 64; Christie, 54; Ohio Gov. John Kasich, 47; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 38; Fiorina, 28; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 21; businessman Donald Trump, 15; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 13; and Cruz with 6.
For the Republicans, climate change came up more in interviews than in their four debates. But Rubio did confront the issue in the Sept. 16 debate in a way that earned him bad grades from some scientists.
“We are not going to make America a harder place to create jobs in order to pursue policies that will do absolutely nothing, nothing, to change our climate, to change our weather, because America is a lot of things, the greatest country in the world, absolutely,” Rubio said. “But America is not a planet. And we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore. China is. And they’re drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get ahold of.”
Scientists dispute Rubio’s argument that because China is now the top emitter, the U.S. can do little to change the future climate. The U.S. spews about 17 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, “so big cuts here would still make a big difference globally,” said geochemist Louisa Bradtmiller at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. Rubio’s inference that China is not doing much about global warming “is out of date. The Chinese are implementing a cap-and-trade system in their country to reduce emissions,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
View gallery FILE – In this Oct. 13, 2015, file photo, Democratic … In this Oct. 13, 2015, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, …At an August event In California’s Orange County, Cruz told an interviewer, “If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero warming. … The satellite says it ain’t happening.”
Florida State University’s James Elsner said ground data show every decade has been warmer than the last since the middle of the 20th century and satellite data-based observations “show continued warming over the past several decades.”
In fact, federal ground-based data, which scientists said is more reliable than satellites, show that 15 of the 17 years after 1997 have been warmer than 1997 and 2015 is on track to top 2014 as the warmest year on record.
Scientists singled out Sanders for overstatement in the first Democratic presidential debate.
“The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,” Sanders said.
View gallery In this photo taken Sept. 16, 2015, Republican presidential … In this photo taken Sept. 16, 2015, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speak …Dessler said, “I would not say that the planet will become uninhabitable. Regardless of what we do, some humans will survive.” Harvard’s Jim McCarthy also called the comment an overstatement, as did other scientists when Sanders said it. Recent research on the worst heat projections in the hottest area, the Persian Gulf, finds that toward the end of the century there will be a few days each decade or so when humans cannot survive outside, but can live with air conditioning indoors.
Trump brought out some of the more colorful and terse critiques.
“It could be warming and it’s going to start to cool at some point,” Trump said in a September radio interview. “And you know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling. I don’t know if you know that or not. They thought the Earth was cooling. Now it’s global warming. Actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out so they changed it to extreme weather and they have all different names, you know, so that it fits the bill.”
McCarthy, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called Trump’s comments “nonsense,” while Emmanuel Vincent, a climate scientist at the University of California, Merced, said, “the candidate does not appear to have any commitment to accuracy.”
The eight scientists are Mann, Dessler, Elsner, McCarthy, Bradtmiller, Vincent, William Easterling at Pennsylvania State University and Matthew Huber at the University of New Hampshire.
View gallery In this Nov. 18, 2015, photo Republican presidential … In this Nov. 18, 2015, photo Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, gives …___
Online:
“What We Know” on climate science by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on climate science: http://bit.ly/ZxACVI
“Climate Change: Evidence and Causes” by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of United Kingdom: http://bit.ly/1pufueQ
___
Follow Seth Borenstein at http://twitter.com/borenbears; his work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/seth-borenstein
EDITOR’S NOTE _ This story, assessing political claims that take shortcuts with the facts or don’t tell the full story, is part of an occasional series focusing on the science, the costs and the challenges of climate change around the world ahead of a summit in Paris.

“We pledge that Congress will not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to the Green Climate Fund until the forthcoming international climate agreement is submitted to the Senate for its constitutional advice and consent,” 37 Republican senators wrote in a letter to Obama on Thursday.

This is worth reading:
Richard Lindzen, Will Happer and Patrick Moore:http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/prominent_scientists_declare_climate_claims_ahead_of_un_summit_irrational_b/
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’
*********

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy